And with God be the rest!”
[19]. This refers to an afternoon party we gave to witness poor Mr. Bishop’s interesting thought-reading performances. He was wonderfully successful throughout, and the company, which consisted of about 30 clever men and women, were unanimous in applauding his art, of whatever nature it may have been. I may add that after my guests were departed, when I took out my cheque-book and begged to know his fee, Mr. Bishop positively refused to accept any remuneration whatever for the charming entertainment he had given us. The tragic circumstances of the death of this unhappy young man will be remembered. He either died, or fell into a deathlike trance, at a supper party in New York, in 1889; and within four hours of his real (or apparent) decease, three medical men who had been supping with him, dissected his brain. One doctor who conducted this autopsy alleged that Bishop had been extremely anxious that his brain should be examined post mortem, but his mother asserted on the contrary, that he had a peculiar horror of dissection, and had left directions that no post mortem should be held on his remains. It was also stated that he had a card in his pocket warning those who might find him at any time in a trance, to beware of burying him before signs of dissolution should be visible. In a leading article on the subject in the Liverpool Daily Post, May 21st, 1889, it is stated that by the laws of the United States “it is distinctly enacted that no dissection shall take place without the fiat of the coroner, or at the request of the relatives of the deceased; so that some explanation of the anxiety which induced so manifest a breach of both laws and custom is eminently desirable. A second examination of the body at the instance of the coroner, has revealed the fact that all the organs were in a healthy state, and that it was impossible to ascribe death to any specific cause or to say whether Mr. Bishop were alive or dead at the time of the first autopsy.” Both wife and mother believed he was “murdered;” and ordered that word to be engraved on his coffin. His mother had herself experienced a cataleptic trance of six days’ duration, during the whole of which she was fully conscious. The three doctors were proceeded against by her and the widow, and were put under bonds of £500 each; but, as the experts alleged that it was impossible to decide the cause of death, the case eventually dropped. Whether it were one of “Human Vivisection” or not, can never now be known. If the three physicians who performed the autopsy on Mr. Bishop did not commit a murder of appalling barbarity on the helpless companion of their supper-table, they certainly risked incurring that guilt with unparalleled levity and callousness.
[20]. A statue of Miss Hosmer exhibited in London, purchased by an American gentleman for £1,000.
[21]. Not quite so good a story as that of another American child who, having been naughty and punished, was sent up to her room by her mother and told to ask for forgiveness. On returning downstairs the mother asked her whether she had done as she had directed? “Oh yes! Mama,” answered the child, “And God said to me, Pray don’t mention it, Miss Perkins!”
[22]. See Spenser—The “West” District of London was the one which elected Miss Garrett for the School Board.
[23]. Sir W. Harcourt interrupted Mr. Russell when speaking of Vivisections before students, by the assertion—
“Under the Act demonstrations were forbidden.”—Times, April 5th, 1883.
In the Act in question—39 & 40 Vict., c. 77, Clause 3, Sect. 1—are these words, “Experiments may be performed ... by a person giving illustrations of lectures,” &c., &c. By the Returns issued from Sir W. Harcourt’s own (Home) Office in the previous year, sixteen persons had been registered as holding certificates permitting experiments in illustration of lectures. It seems to me a shocking feature of modern politics that an outrageous falsehood—or must we call it mistake?—of this kind is allowed to serve its purpose at the moment but the author never apologizes for it afterwards.
[24]. Most of the following letters were lent by me to Mr. Walrond when he was preparing the biography of Dean Stanley, and in returning them he said that he had kept copies of them, and meant to include them in his book. The present Editor not having used them, I feel myself at liberty to print them here.
[25]. We had many good stories floating about in Rome at that time and he was always ready to enjoy them, but one, I think, told me by the painter Penry Williams, would not have tickled him as it did us heretics. The Pope, it seems, offered one of his Cardinals (whose reputation was far from immaculate) a pinch of snuff. The Cardinal replied more facetiously than respectfully “Non ho questo vizio, Santo Padre.” Pius IX. observed quietly, snapping his snuffbox, “Se vizio fosse, l’avreste” (If it had been a vice you would have had it)!